There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

Only the mundane ones. And some of those claims have been shown to be wrong by historians as you well know.. You need evidence for the magical ones and there is none for that.


No, they do not make an exception for the Bible. Various bits of evidence confirm the Trojan war. But historians still all reject the magic gods part =s of those stories. The Bible is not singled out this way.



No, you are incorrect. In fact you only show your own bias because there are many historical events that have magic associated with them. By your standards you would have to accept all of those magical claims, but you only accept the magical claims of the Bible. Your standards are broken.

Well then give an example of such a claim……………. Support your assertion?..............or are you going to run away and the lie as you didn with your 6AD claim?

stop making random and unsupported climes, and at least for this time, make an expetion and support your claim (in red letters above)

Only the mundane ones

That is my point,

1 you accept the mundane claims (those that don’t have theological implications that you dont like)

2 But you reject those claims that challenge your philosophical world view (naturalism)

3 therefore you have a bias against things that challenge naturalism

The historical evidence for the “mundane claims” and for the resurrection is the same (same sources) ………… the only things that changes is your standards

 

[Thrillobyte]

What is the evidence that the temple was destroyed in 70ad?

In the case of the resurrection we have at least 2 independent sources (Paul and the Gospels) from authors that wrote about the events within 1 generation after the event.

What are your sources for the burning of the temple in 70AC?

Why do you think those sources are better than Paul and the Gospels?

I am agape. I scarcely know how to respond to such tomfoolery.

 

[leroy]

I am agape. I scarcely know how to respond to such tomfoolery.

It is very easy to respond

Just explain what are the sources for the destruction of the temple in 70ad and explain why are those sources better than paul and the gospels.

----------------
BTW do you want evidence for supernatural powers?

Watch me, take a look at my ability to predict the future.

“You will not respond to my request” you will not provide the sources for the destruction of the temple because you have no idea what the sources are.,

You will try to look for the answer in Wikipedia, but you will note that at best your sources are as good (or as bad) as the bible.

Since you will not have the intellectual honesty to admit your mistake, you will avoid this challenge, and make arrogant statements about how “stupid” Christians are supposed to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not following the conversation

My point is not that abiogenesis was caused by magic, my point is that “the law of biogenesis” corresponds to what @It Aint Necessarily So calls a law of nature.

If I show you evidence that ICE melted when it wasn’t supposed to melt according tu current knowledge of the laws of physics, you will simply say that “something happened” and invent an excuse for not calling it a miracle.

My ultimate point is that definition of a “law” is too vague and ambiguous, it is impossible to tell if something breaks a law, hence it is impossible to show by your standards that “magic” is possible.

Sorry, but you do not understand the "Law of Biogenesis". It does not deny abiogenesis. When it comes to the sciences, you will almost always get it wrong.

Your argument failed. If you want more than that simply own up to it since you just dug yourself even deeper in a hole by referring to the Law of Biogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jajaaja you keep repeating your lies…. That is funny and pathetic

But ok new challenge

Give me an example of a claim that has no theological implications that atheist don’t like, that is made in the gospels that:

1 is also made by paul

2 it is not accepted by most historians as a historical fact.

That is because you appear to be a very very slow learner.

The magic claims of all history that involves magic are rejected, not just Christianity. You are not being consistent in your "reasoning" again.


Your new challenge does not appear to make any sense. Can you try to make it again? But first you must apologizing for your false statement, which appears to be a lie, about me lying. I told no lies. I only repeated facts.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but you do not understand the "Law of Biogenesis". It does not deny abiogenesis. When it comes to the sciences, you will almost always get it wrong.

Your argument failed. If you want more than that simply own up to it since you just dug yourself even deeper in a hole by referring to the Law of Biogenesis.

you dont reed my comments do you?

 

[Thrillobyte]

It is very easy to respond

Just explain what are the sources for the destruction of the temple in 70ad and explain why are those sources better than paul and the gospels.

----------------
BTW do you want evidence for supernatural powers?

Watch me, take a look at my ability to predict the future.

“You will not respond to my request” you will not provide the sources for the destruction of the temple because you have no idea what the sources are.,

You will try to look for the answer in Wikipedia, but you will note that at best your sources are as good (or as bad) as the bible.

Since you will not have the intellectual honesty to admit your mistake, you will avoid this challenge, and make arrogant statements about how “stupid” Christians are supposed to be.

It's not difficult to prove the destruction of the temple. What leaves me agape is that you have the temerity to compare two fictitious characters in a document universally acknowledged to be a religious manifesto and not an authenticated historical record with an event likewise universally acknowledged to have happened.

"In 70 CE the Romans reclaimed Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple with only a portion of the western wall remaining (though recent archeological discoveries date portions of the wall to later periods). The Western Wall remains a sacred site for Jews."

Destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE

rpl.hds.harvard.edu

Honestly, leroy your bogus assertion almost borders on trolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you dont reed my comments do you?

I do, but the problem is that they are incoherent. For example in the one that you appear to be talking about you used what appears to be a clear strawman argument. I tried to respond to it the best that I could, but if you want to admit that once again you had no point I would be agree with that.

Please try to make a rational argument for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not difficult to prove the destruction of the temple. What leaves me agape is that you have the temerity to compare two fictitious characters in a document universally acknowledged to be a religious manifesto and not an authenticated historical record with an event likewise universally acknowledged to have happened.

"In 70 CE the Romans reclaimed Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple with only a portion of the western wall remaining (though recent archeological discoveries date portions of the wall to later periods). The Western Wall remains a sacred site for Jews."

Destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE

rpl.hds.harvard.edu

Honestly, leroy your bogus assertion almost borders on trolling.

Almost?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible is not a single source and I told you why………… given that I corrected your mistakes and you keep repeating the same claim……… therefore You are lying.

And that claim was repeatedly refuted, even if you did not understand the refutation. The mistakes were yours.

Wow, I called you a liar, and then I was capable of explaining exactly what you lie is……….. you have never been able to support your accusations towards me.

No, you called me a liar and then were only able to support it with more false claims. And then you ended your post with another false claim about others. Naughty naughty.. Your inability to understand does not mean that you were not refuted. And I am not the only one that has done sol Others have used the same arguments against you. Repeatedly. Are they now lying too? Or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong once again as you almost always are.

 

[Eli G]

I am not the one making the unreasonable claims about invisible gods out there, if you want to believe in unsupported nonsense you are free to do so, it is your prerogative, better you than me.

That is another of your mantras. You are soooo indoctrinated

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is another of your mantras. You are soooo indoctrinated

Really? Then why are you the one that is unable to support your claims that you have evidence? To m it looks as if you are the indoctrinated one here.

 

[Eli G]

Oh, Lord ... They are soooo into it that they don't even realize that what they are saying is the same thing that they just said before and was already answered ...
Poor guys

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, Lord ... They are soooo into it that they don't even realize that what they are saying is the same thing that they just said before and was already answered ...
Poor guys

When you repeat refuted claims what else do you expect in response?

 

[leroy]

It's not difficult to prove the destruction of the temple. What leaves me agape is that you have the temerity to compare two fictitious characters in a document universally acknowledged to be a religious manifesto and not an authenticated historical record with an event likewise universally acknowledged to have happened.

"In 70 CE the Romans reclaimed Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple with only a portion of the western wall remaining (though recent archeological discoveries date portions of the wall to later periods). The Western Wall remains a sacred site for Jews."

Destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE

rpl.hds.harvard.edu

Honestly, leroy your bogus assertion almost borders on trolling.

OMG………… are you for real?

I am talking about the primary sources for the event, (ancient historians for example)………… what are the primary sources for that event?

It's not difficult to prove the destruction of the temple.

Granted, your burden is not to show that this event happened, (we both agree it did) but rather your burden is to show that the primary sources for that event are better than Paul + the Gospels.

 

[leroy]

When you repeat refuted claims what else do you expect in response?

Can you quote a refuted claim??????? Of course not you are just making things up…………. Shame on you

 

[Eli G]

The Bible describes this state of the mind in which some persons are:

Eph. 4:17 (...) [they] walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, 18 while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. 19 Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness.

1 Tim. 6:4 he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, 5 violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.

That is unhealthy for themselves. Some of them ask me why I ignore them.
The answer is: I am allergic to that mental state.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Really? Then why are you the one that is unable to support your claims that you have evidence? To m it looks as if you are the indoctrinated one here.

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are an interesting sect of Christianity.

I've had my fair share of interactions with them (see here), and I'm well aware of how disrespectful some of them can be (see here).

 

[Eli G]

Dead's opinion doesn't matter.
Actually: they are demons.

 

[Thrillobyte]

OMG………… are you for real?

I am talking about the primary sources for the event, (ancient historians for example)………… what are the primary sources for that event?

I assume Josephus' "The Jewish War" is not good enough for you.

Of the War — Book VII​

Containing the interval of about three years.
From the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, to the sedition at Cyrene.


Chapter 1.


How the entire city of Jerusalem was demolished, excepting three towers. And how Titus commended his soldiers in a speech made to them; and distributed rewards to them; and then dismissed many of them.


1. Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay, or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury: (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done Cæsar gave orders that they should now demolish the intire city, and temple: but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency, that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne: and so much of the wall as inclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison: as were the towers also spared in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valour had subdued. But for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground, by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to, by the madness of those that were for innovations. A city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

Josephus: Of the War, Book VII